This next is St. Peter, and I believe this is one of the few topics upon which the infallible Peter and the equally infallible Paul did not disagree:
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;
that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the
word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with
fear.
—1 Peter iii.
I should think that would be a winning card. If the conversation of a wife, coupled with a good deal of fear, would not convert a man, he is a hopeless case.
But here is Paul again, in all his mathematical glory, and mortally afraid that women won't do themselves honor.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is
Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head
of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head
covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
uncovered, dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as
if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let
her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch
as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the
glory of the man:
8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the
man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman
for the man.
—1 Cor. xi.
And that settles it, I suppose. But what on earth was man created for? I should not think it could have been just for fun.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to
be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn anything, let them ask their
husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in
the church.
—1 Cor. xiv.
That is a principle that should entitle St. Paul to the profound admiration of women. And yet, when I come to think of it, I don't know which one gets the worst of that either. Whenever you want to know anything, ask your husband, at home! No wonder most husbands don't have time to stay at home much. No wonder they have to see a man so often. It would unseat any man's reason if he lived in constant fear that he might, any minute, be required to explain to a woman of sense, how death could have been brought into this world by Eve, when every one knows that long before man could have lived upon this earth animals lived and died. It would make any man remember that he had to "catch a car" if he were asked suddenly to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. I would not blame the most sturdy theologian for remembering that it was club night, if his wife were to ask him, unexpectedly, how Nebuchadnezzar, with his inexperience, could digest grass with only one stomach, when it takes four for the oxen that are used to it. That may account, however, for his hair turning to feathers.
I don't believe St. Paul could have realized what a diabolical position he was placing husbands in, when he told wives to ask them every time they wanted to know anything—unless he wanted to make marriage unpopular. There is one thing certain, he was careful not to try it himself, which looks much as if he had some realizing sense of what he had cut out for husbands to do, and felt that there were some men who would rather be drafted—and then send a substitute.
But why are his commands not followed to-day? Why are not the words, sister, mother, daughter, wife, only names for degradation And dishonor?